Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs

[Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>]

On 2021/08/26 11:42, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Damien,
> 
>> Re-ping ? Anything against this series ? Can we get it queued for 5.15 ?
> 
> Wrt. the choice of 'crange':
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAHk-=wiZ=wwa4oAA0y=Kztafgp0n+BDTEV6ybLoH2nvLBeJBLA@mail.gmail.com/

Yes, I have been reading this thread. Very good one.

> 
> I share Linus' sentiment.
> 
> I really think 'crange' is a horribly non-descriptive name compared to
> logical_block_size, max_sectors_kb, discard_max_bytes, and the other
> things we export.
> 
> In addition, the recently posted copy offload patches also used
> 'crange', in that context to describe a 'copy range'.

Yes, saw that too.

> Anyway. Just my opinion.

Thanks for sharing.

I am not super happy with the name either. I used this one as the least worst of
possibilities I thought of.
seek_range/srange ? -> that is very HDD centric and as we can reuse this for
things like dm-linear on top of SSDs, that does not really work.
I would prefer something that convey the idea of "parallel command execution",
since this is the main point of the interface. prange ? cdm_range ? req_range ?

Naming is really hard...

> Jens: Feel free to add my Acked-by: to the sd pieces. My SCSI discovery
> rework won't make 5.15.
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research